Let's say the Democrats filibuster Alito ...then what ?

[kentuck]

What do we have....44 Democrats in the Senate? That means there are "only" 56 Republicans. Since it takes 60 votes to shut down debate and stop a filibuster, that means the Republicans would need 4 Democrats to join them to stop the filibuster. So long as we got 41 Democrats willing to stand together, the filibuster continues as long as the Democrats wish.

And that's why the Repubs have threatened to use the "nuclear option" where they could stop the filibuster with a simple majority vote. If they do that, many years of historical precedence would be thrown aside. Can the Democrats filibuster the vote to go to a "nuclear option"? Can they prevent the vote on a "nuclear option" with a filibuster on the nuclear option??

How do the Republicans word the "nuclear option"? They will have to know what they are voting for, right? If Bill Frist comes to the floor and says that he is going to bring the nomination of Alito to the floor for a simple majority vote (nuclear option), what is to stop the Democrats from filibustering that proposal. How can they bring it to the floor if the Democrats do not go along? Just musing....

[Eric J in MN]

1. Bill Frist would say it's a point of order for the parlimentarian

and then the parlimentarian would say that filibusters are constitutional, and then Frist would say that filibusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional and overrule him with a majority vote.

It's under-handed way to change Senate rules with a majority vote, when Senate rules are only supposed to change with a 2/3 vote.

[kentuck]

2. But would they vote on that rule?

And what's to stop the Senate from filibustering at any time?

(on edit)

Say for example, that Bill Frist says we are going to have a vote on Alita, but there can be no vote until the Senate agrees to stop the debate? I suppose a Senator could object and then the vote would go forth? Then what would the Democrats do? Just walk out? It seems like a big mess all around and something we should think through...

[Eric J in MN]

3. I don't know if a vote on a Senate rule can be filibustered (nt)

nt

[kentuck]

4. Would that be another "stunt"?

:)

[Zynx]

5. We really have 45 since Jeffords will vote with us.

However, we are facing a problem with the nuclear option since they can pass that on a simple majority vote and I'm not sure that we have enough votes to stop it.

[kentuck]

6. But it's difficult to have a vote on anything unless the Senate agrees..

right? OK, let's have a vote. Then a Senator objects. Objection over-ruled. Another objection..etc...When does the vote physically take place if the Senate does not agree?

[gratuitous]

7. I don't know if the Republicans are quite so inclined to go nuclear

They have their own polls and polling, and they can read numbers as well as we do. Right now, there's a lot of dissatisfaction in the country with their leadership, with the generic Democrat vs. Republican polling favoring the Democrats by more than 10 points. Bush's approval ratings are the lowest ever measured, and unless Stupidhead starts raising dead soldiers from the grave, his numbers are likely to continue ratcheting downward.

All of which is to say that in the heyday of what looked like a possible Republican "permanent" majority, they could make cocksure pronouncements about abolishing the filibuster. But mirabile dictu, it appears that they just might need to have the filibuster at their disposal a lot sooner than never.

Besides, after Reid's Stunt yesterday, it should be apparent even to a dummy like Bill Frist that there are myriad other ways of stopping the Senate from conducting its business that don't require the filibuster. The GOP is on notice that it had better tread very carefully when it comes to screwing around with the Senate rules. The motion to put the Senate in closed session wasn't brought by some bomb-throwing back-bencher; it was moved by the Minority Leader and seconded by the Minority Whip.

[drm604]

8. If they go nuclear

If they go nuclear then the Democrats can shut everything down everyday from there on by repeatedly calling for closed sessions, like they did yesterday. It only takes two Senators to do it, one to make the motion and one to second it. I personally think that this may have been at least partially what they had in mind yesterday. They wanted to show the Republicans that they have a response to them going nuclear, with the hope that it will be a deterrent. They needed a reason, and the Iraq intelligence investigation served that purpose (and was an emminently worthwhile goal in its own right). I think that this is why the Republicans were so spittin' mad. They realized that they've been disarmed.

[Tactical Progressive]

9. That's a really interesting take on the closed session confrontation

I'm wondering if Dems could peel a few Repubs off of the 'nuclear option' treachery so it wouldn't come to that. The usual suspects - Jeffords, Snowe, Chaffee and maybe even whipped-dog McCain and a couple of others might have some respect for the Senate institution. Enough perhaps to stand up against their own party making a mockery of the Senate. McCain expressed such sentiments against its use in practical terms on Charlie Rose the other night.

Probably not though.

[kentuck]

10. That's what the "gang of 14" was all about...

The Democrats should start cultivating their patriotism and regard for tradition now...before the vote ever comes up...Try to stary ahead of the Repubs.

[Tactical Progressive]

14. I agree with that

Dems are always in reaction mode, which is a losing posture, because they are always having to answer Republican garbage which spews forth without prompting at all times.

Dems are finally starting to ignore them and speak their own points. I saw Durbin the other night respond to a Repub question from the CME by basically ignoring it and throwing out his points, which is all Repugs ever do.

[Spazito]

11. The dems can also slow the senate down to a slow crawl by

refusing 'unanimous consent' on putting aside the reading of any and all bills, forcing the whole bill/bills to be read, word by word and some of those bills are hundreds of pages long.

When the repubs first threatened the 'nuclear option,, the dems threatened them back with the withdrawal of 'unanimous consent'. I have no doubt they will use it if necessary.

[drm604]

12. I'm curious,

how many Senators does it take to withdraw unanimous consent? Is 1 or 2 enough? (The word "unanimous" would seem to imply that 1 is enough, but I'm not sure about that.) If it requires the cooperation of a large number of Senators then it may not be viable. The closed session tactic, at least as I understand it, only requires 2.

[Spazito]

13. It only takes one to object

It must be unanimous, in the true sense of the word, for the waiving of the reading of the bill.

As regard to the closed session, it is a rule of the Senate, is non-debatable and only needs a mover and a seconder to force a closed session.

Allowing unanimous consent to waive the reading of the bill has been a courtesy offered by both parties to move the business along, it is not a rule of the Senate.

Edited to add the rule on closed Session:

Standing Rules of The Senate
RULE XXI

SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS

1. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed.

2. When the Senate meets in closed session, any applicable provisions of rules XXIX and XXXI, including the confidentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any debate transacted.

Senate Rules on Bills:

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule14.htm

[drm604]

15. Interesting

If unanimous consent is simply a courtesy rather than a rule then it seems like the Republicans can ignore it if they want to. I'm guessing that both sides realized this and that we saw a preview of the real Democratic tactic yesterday. The Repubs were probably counting on ignoring the non-rule unanimous consent thing, so of course they're now furious because the Democrats have found a tactic that is within the rules and can't be ignored. This raises another question: can the Republicans change the closed session rule? Would they be likely to do so?

[Spazito]

16. If the repubs were to ignore the unanimous consent courtesy, that

would mean they would want to follow the rule re the readings of the bills instead of waiving them. That is NOT what they want, they want the courtesy to be continued.

re the closed session rule, they can try, will they succeed, doubtful. If they did, it would mirror the 'nuclear option' aspect the repubs are threatening on the filibuster, it is a very risky thing to try, imo, especially given the low poll numbers congress is already getting from the public.

You must remember, the repubs used the closed session rule SIX times during the Clinton impeachment times and I am SURE the democrats will point out their hypocrisy if they were to attempt to change the rules because the Democrats dared to use it.

[Mountainman]

17. They end the filibuster and we end the congress simple.

Of course it takes cajones